Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,472 times Debate No: 58553
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




First round acceptance

I will be arguing how science supports either of the Abrahamic faith that we could call "Judaism" or "Christianity." I will show how the Bible is supported by facts.


Since the opponent has failed to define some important terms in this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to define them.

SCIENTIFIC PROOF: Scientific proof is defined as something that was obtained via an empirical experiment following the scientific method.

Abrahamic God: The Abrahamic God takes several names, but would be concluded as "Allah" in Islam and "Yahweh" in Christianity and possibly Judaism.

Supported: Supported is defined as the quality of being helped by something.

In this debate, the BoP lies on pro to prove. For pro to win this debate, he has to prove that "Yahweh" is directly supported by valid scientific proof.

C1. Dualism and the Brain: Alleged Scientific Proof of God

Before I disprove this argument, we must firstly look into what Dualism is. Dualism is not a disease, but it is a belief that the human mind and the human body are two separate entities. This belief was elaborated by great philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes, in his “Sixth Meditations” when he stated that:

I remark, besides, that this power of imagination which I possess, in as far as it differs from the power of conceiving, is in no way necessary to my [nature or] essence, that is, to the essence of my mind; for although I did not possess it, I should still remain the same that I now am, from which it seems we may conclude that it depends on something different from the mind. And I easily understand that, if somebody exists, with which my mind is so conjoined and united as to be able, as it were, to consider it when it chooses, it may thus imagine corporeal objects; so that this mode of thinking differs from pure intellection only in this respect, that the mind in conceiving turns in some way upon itself, and considers some one of the ideas it possesses within itself; but in imagining it turns toward the body, and contemplates in it some object conformed to the idea which it either of itself conceived or apprehended by sense.

He presents a bold claim; the mind does not need the body to exist is a claim that is distinctive and original. One of the deepest thinkers of his generation, and possibly of any generation, Descartes theorized that his body and his mind were in a state of perfect union, but when the body sways away or malfunctions, the mind could move on. He created this thought to refute irreligious people, and to formalize the neo-Aristotelian philosophical existentialist view. It is a bold thought, and is perhaps becoming discredited by the many advances in psychology that we are facing. However, some people believe in it. And belief in this dualistic separation often means belief in the Abrahamic God. Why so? This is best concluded with this premise-conclusive inductive logical argument:

1. If the mind could exist without the body, then a realm of the mindless bodies exist

2. If the body could exist without the mind, then a realm of the body-absent minds exist

3. If a realm of body-absent minds exists, then this realm is called the supernatural

4. If the supernatural exists, then there must be a supreme being controlling it

5. This Supreme Being is the Abrahamic God

6. Therefore, the Abrahamic God exists if the Dualist Argument is correct

However, we may find many flaws in this whole argument, and in Dualism itself. Dualism is supported, as Rene Descartes stated (in Sixth Meditations) by the following philosophical proof: (Both of them are non-scientific empirical arguments. Philosophy also shares the same relationship with science that masturbation shares to sex. We, however, are looking for scientific proof, not philosophical ones. Scientific evidence is obtained through the scientific method)

Argument One:

[O]n the one hand I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing [that is, a mind], and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing. And accordingly, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it

Argument Two:

[T]here is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible. For when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete….By contrast, there is no corporeal or extended thing that I can think of which in my thought I cannot easily divide into parts; and this very fact makes me understand that it is divisible. This one argument would be enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body

(Note that these two arguments are from the Sixth Meditations, therefore I in this case do not represent me, but represents what Descartes thought about his mind-body dualism)

A newcomer to this argument, however, could easily slam this argument. The simplest arguments against dualism might turn out to be the most effective. Adopting a viewpoint of a critic of the dualist thought, one may say that the research of the mind, psychology psychiatry etc., has proven that the research in the body could explain the mind, or the understanding of the mind could lead to the understanding of the human body. This, in Dualism, is impossible. Therefore, dualism is incorrect. This is the simplest and most effective anti-dualist criticism that one will ever find. There are also certain replies from many other scientists. Echoing the physic’s criticism, dualism violates “natural laws” This would be explained in my latter cases if the government sides raises up this argument.

C2. Ontological/Logical Evidence is Invalidated in this Debate

Self-explanatory contention; ontological evidence, albeit satisfying for many, will not help fulfill the opponent’s BoP. If the opponent decides to use such arguments, like Anslem’s Ontological Proof, then that invalidates the scientific part of this debate. Once again, my I remind all readers that science is not the same as logic and math. Science has a specific method; it counts both the errors and the “hits” that was recorded over time in a scientific experiment. Ontological evidence or modal evidence is based on rationalistic reasoning. For example, I may reason that I have one million dollars because I have a computer, which can cost more than a million dollar. However, I have no such wealth.

C3. CREATIONISM WOO HOO Argument One: Noah’s Ark

Creationism is often used as a scientific source for God. Because the Bible is God’s word, if anything is true in the Bible, the Bible is validated. If the Bible is validated, then God is validated. This is the type of circular arguments that many Christians have employed against Atheists. However, I have a book on the Spaghetti Monster. Its first sentence or a sentence in it is true. Therefore the spaghetti monster exists. This is equivalent to the Christian version of the argument. After analyzing this, we must now look at Creationistic theory. Firstly, let us look at Noah’s Ark first, and then the notion of worldwide flood later. The flood is described via the following verse (Genesis 7:17):

Then the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters were increased, and bare up the Ark, which was lifted up above the earth.

And the processions of the animals are described in Genesis 7:15:

For they came to Noah into the Ark, two and two, of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.

There are many flaws in this story. My first arguments to invalidate Noah’s Ark are anthropological, and then I move on to the other fallacies in the story.

Anthropologically, shepherd herders could not have possibly known the arts of boatmanship. If we are to make the assumption that Noah and his animals all existed in one area, then that area would have been in the desert, somewhere in Palestine or Jerusalem, as the highest concentration of Jews (or pre-Christians, in this case) are in Alexandria and the northern provinces (during the Roman Empire). The belief that Noah created an ark that could hold millions of animals is almost fantasy; even with modern technology, humans are still unable to create such a thing. In fact, according to Bill Nye, the best boat makers in the world in Birmingham set upon the task of creating a Noah’s ark. These people were the best builders in the world; yet, with such a skill set at hand, they are unable to create Noah’s Ark!

Other fallacies:

F1. The Grand Canyon; according to Genesis, this flood was a worldwide flood. Yet we have one Grand Canyon, in America, that is almost capable of draining massive amounts of floodwater that the flood would have produced.

F2. Trees were under water for one year, and yet they survived? What is this? If we were to take a tree, put it under water for a year, we would clearly see that the tree would have died out, as trees need oxygen to survive.

F3. The earth was filled with misery, therefore God order the execution and deaths of millions of animals via a flood. I was told that God was infinitely good. Why would he let this happen? This fallacy is just an extension of the logical problem of evil.

F4. If this flood truly did happen, then we expect animals to try to swim up to survive this flood. This would have caused the fossilization of these animals on the surface in which we stand on; however there are no such phenomenal happenings; we have to dig down, deep, in order to find fossils.

If the Creationistic theory does not hold up, then the Bible is clearly invalid. If the Bible is invalid, then the existence of the Abrahamic God is negated.

What Conclusions can we draw from this first round?

C1. Dualism has been cited as scientific proof. It was created on philosophy.
C2. Modal Logic cannot be used.
C3. Proving the Creationistic Theory is allowed, but again, it has to be science that proves it.



Debate Round No. 1


I thank con for defining terms

Although i am a Christian, i would not use dualism to prove that God exists or the ontological argument. I'm not a believer in "creationism", but i do believe that God caused the creation. Instead, i will use various scientific proofs that God exists through the Bible being divinely inspired.

1. The creation account in the Bible is the only 1 which accurately describes creation excluding mythical elements.

Gen. 1:1 "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." According to Hebrew cosmology, the heavens are made of the components of the cosmos. According to the big bang, the universe expanded from a single point and thus gave rise to everything in it including the earth.

Gen. 1:2 "The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." The earth was once a lifeless rock and light could not yet form. During this time period, it rained for long periods of time until the world's first oceans formed.

Gen. 1:3-4 "3 And God said, Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

The water vapor in the atmosphere basically condensed and sunlight broke through.

Gen. 1:6-8 "And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

According to the great oxidation event, oxygen escaped Earth's oceans and became part of the atmosphere.

Gen. 1:9-10 - And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good."

Continents began to move around over long periods of time and formed Pangea which is a single continent.

Gen. 1:11-13 - "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."

Plant life was the 1st to form.

Gen. 1: 14-19 - " And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Eventually the moon and the sun appeared to give light upon the earth.

Gen. 1: 20-23 - "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

Creatures from the seas emerged first and then land animals and finally, birds.

When God made man, he made man into his image and man evolved into the "image of God." He gave him rule over all of creation as soon as he possessed the abilities and traits of God. The Hebrew word "Nephesh" generally means "the whole of the person composed of mind, body, spirit, emotions, feelings, will, heart, etc." This is why dualism isn't necessarily biblical.

More scientific accuracies are in the Bible such as the earth hanging on nothing (gravity) Job 26:7. Isa. 40:22 is also said by experts to speak of a spherical earth (1). Job 38:12-14 says earth rotates daily. Psalm 104:2 states that God stretches out the heavens, confirming the expanding of the universe. Jer. 31:37 says stars cannot be counted and it's confirmed by science (2) Job 38:33 speaks of "ordinances of heavens" proving that gravity and inertia hold the world.

In a book called "Science speaks: Scientific proof of the accuracy of prophecy and the Bible" which you can find here:

The author explains the accuracy of prophecy using probability and explores it with science. Furthermore, prophecies on the Messiah have been fulfilled:

The New Testament manuscripts now is closer to the originals, making it more accurate and less likely to have been forged. As scholar D.A Carson sums it up ""The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."

According to this article, the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate through Archaeology:

The scribes which transmitted the Bible were very careful in transmitting the text as one scholar puts it:

"The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these." (3).

Very few errors were made in the manuscripts over thousands of years, only spelling errors none which affect doctrine.

Finally, the books of the Bible were spread out over centuries and indicate the work of a God not the product of humans. For example, how is it that the Hebrew name of God "Elohim" which is plural would later be identified as the Triune God with the coming of Jesus thousands of years ahead of it's time? Coincidences? I can only think of 1 explanation: God himself..


1. Hebrew and English Lexicon of Old Testament - Wm. Gesenius and Ed. Robinson, Houghton Mifflin, 1854.

2. Has God Spoken? - A. O. Schnabel. Privately printed in Portland, Oregon, 1966.

3. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering


I would like to thank Pro for his response. Before I move on with presenting more arguments, I would like to refute the points raised by Pro.

2R1RC: “Scientific Proof”

P1. All scientific proof is obtained via an empirical experiment that follows the scientific method

P2. The historical accuracies of the Bible aren’t obtained via the scientific method

C. the Historical Accuracies of the Bible is not “scientific proof” as defined by the definitions given

In order to understand this argument, we have to understand the notion of what the “scientific method” is. In science, all empirical experiments serve as a basis to prove a hypothesis. This hypothesis is supported by both empirical evidence and rational reasoning; if the results of the experiment do not prove the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is invalid [1]. The scientific method also accounts for all evidence that goes both and against the hypothesis; in the scientific method, there are measures that are to be fixed, measured and changed in order to account for both the “misses” and the “hits” This is better explained by the head of Skeptic Society, Michael Shermer [2]:

But in science, we have to keep track of the misses, not just the hits. And that's probably the key lesson to my short talk here, is that this is how psychics work, astrologers, and tarot card readers and so on. People remember the hits; they forget the misses. In science we have to keep the whole database, and look to see if the number of hits somehow stands out from the total number that you would expect by chance.

The opponent may accuse me of playing semantics, but he has already accepted the definitions that I gave him; in order to look into what is unscientific about the opponent’s case, we must first observe it wholly, then we must go on to refute his arguments individually.

By saying that several things in the Holy Bible are true, and therefore God exists, is like saying that we can observe that the world is flat, and some facts support this; because of this, the world is flat. This is a logical fallacy, formally called evidence suppression. Evidence Suppression is very unscientific as it does not account for the contrary evidence at all. [3] Why is this evidence suppression? I say this: many verses in the Bible are false or irrational. For example, we may take the 7 days account into notice. Days are now consented as 24 hours; however, the Hebrew word for days also meant periods of 12 hours and 1-2 years. Firstly, the literalist view will be attacked first. 148 hours is way too few for a huge rock, like earth, to cool down; in the Big Bang theory, a theory in which science has supported, Earth was created in the inner solar system where the planetesimals could have only developed into the common elements that are found in Earth’s ground; yet to do this required more time than 7 days. Perhaps millions of years to form; after all, it took 3 million years for the planetesimals to cool down. The metaphorical view is also refuted; 84 hours is still way too less, and so is 1-2 years. [4]

More falsifiable statements in the Bible are:

FS1. Noah’s Ark: Explained in R1. Briefly, it would be almost impossible for shepherd herders to carry millions of animals onto a boat built with wood.

FS2. The Flood: If the Flood drained in one year, then there would have to be Grand Canyons, or Canyons large enough, for the water to be drained in every continent. No such thing exists.

These are some of the “fiction-like” verses of the Holy Bible; for the Holy Bible to be true, it must be proven wholly (i.e. every statement has to be true). However, without any doubt, disproving some of it disproves the Holy Bible wholly.

Historical Accuracy is therefore not scientific evidence that God exists.


P1. All humans minds have developed special properties over time

P2. These special properties give supernatural beliefs, like God and the Spaghetti Monster, a place

C. God is developed by the human mind and only exists in the human mind

Defending Major and Minor Premise:

The human mind has changed a lot over times, and it has developed certain qualities that allow the illusion of God to exist in the mind. For example, young children tend to believe in fantasies; when I was a kid, I believed that I was destined to rule a country called Taneburg. When scientist Deborah Kleman asked children about the meaning of life for birds, such absurd replies such as “they exist because they make nice music” or “they exist because someone had to climb trees” were collected. What does this conclude? That we are trying to impose myth on reality; that humans have developed the mind to find design in nature. [6]

This argument will be further developed in the next round, along with the Dualist-Monist argument.


P1. Spontaneous Generation is impossible due to the natural laws that we have emplaced on our Earth

P2. God has allegedly created humans via spontaneous generation.

P3. If the creation of humans under God goes to an obsolete theory, then God never created humans

C. If God never created humans, then it is quite possible for God to not exist

C2. If God never created humans, then it is impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist


Spontaneous generation is the argument that life can be made almost instantaneously and at any given point in time. It revolves around the concept that matter can show up at any time and can be created at any given moment; for example­, under spontaneous generation, it is reputed that I could make rats, flies and bees appear. Spontaneous generation has its roots in Ancient Greece, but was immensely popular during the Black Death. Apparently, many priests came up with a recipe to make rats and fleas, as they believed that the rats and fleas were made up from nowhere, and that rotten meat held in it some sort of mythical powers to create fleas. This theory is how Christians attribute to the creation of men; men were suddenly created, in spontaneous manner, one ordinary day in history. Spontaneous Generation is a now obsolete theory; Louis Pasteur’s experiment proved that living matter cannot be simply created out of nowhere. However, this theory still lingers on in the creation of us humans.


Firstly, let me say that almost everything, including a God, (since the world began) has to follow natural laws. With this said, we must theorize that God created humans instantly. However, if this theory is not satisfying enough, then from Genesis 5:1 we see this verse:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him,

This states that God created Adam during the day; this is impossible. Even God, whose universe was apparently created by him in this theory, has to follow natural laws. God cannot create someone, even if he wanted to, in a day, as that violates natural laws.


In spontaneous generation, it is generally said that flies come from nowhere. There are several matters that could make flies, and a general consensus within the scientific community then was that flies could spontaneously arise from rotten meat. Francesco Redi, an Italian Physicist, start doubting this. In a scientific experiment to observe the generation of flies and other pests, he starts by putting several chunks of meat into a jar. He then takes the maggots that develop from the jar out, and starts observing them. In another part of his experiment, he takes four pieces of meat into a jar. Two of them are of edible condition. The other two are rotten. In order for the spontaneous generation theory to be sound/valid, it is generally thought that flies could develop from anywhere, including rotten and unspoiled meat whose lids are close. He does exactly that; he puts two pieces of meat, one rotten and one unspoiled, into a jar and then closes the lid. He does exactly that same thing to the other; however, he leaves the lid open in these ones. Flies only developed in one of the two test subjects! After seeing them fully develop into flies, he comes to a conclusion that these pests were developed from microscopic eggs. In his famous book, Experiments on the Generation of Insects, he describes his experiment and then blatantly states out that “all life comes from life” [5]

This diagram is a replication of Redi's experiment

The Development of Flies according to Redi

Francesco Redi has, by disproving spontaneous generation, disproved the concept of an Abrahamic god. Why? Because this theory proves that nothing could just pop out of nowhere, after the creation of the world. God could not have easily created man, who corrupted his perfect world, within a day or spontaneously without defying natural laws.


Firstly, in this debate, we are looking at the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God created this world. He created humans spontaneously. Unlike the Hindu Multitheistic beliefs, the Abrahamic God is in entirety responsible for the creation of this world. However, if the theory of human creation in Biblical passages defies natural laws, then what are we to conclude?

We are to conclude that the Bible, wholly, provides an inadequate unscientific account of the creation of the world. The theories presented by the Bible go against what we know about modern physics and this idea of “evolution” not “creation”

CONCLUSION: The resolution is negated








Debate Round No. 2


While my opponent claims that the Bible is irrational and uses different views to attack the Bible with, he fails to actually attack the meaning of the word yom or day in Hebrew.

1st - The Hebrew word for "day" can last from a few seconds to millions of years (1). Therefore the big bang is still consistent with Scripture.

2nd - Linguistic evidence shows that Noah's flood was not global, but local (2). Therefore, not all the animals in the globe were taken. A local flood is entirely plausible.

My opponent commits a fallacy: the ability to create or imagine something doesn't imply that everything is made up. Based on experience, God's existence was not dependent on my ability to make it up, he simply acted upon my life. If someone speaks to you and interacts with you, do you simply reject their existence and they will "magically" go away? No, they exist and that's the reality of it. If i make up a monster, will it suddenly come to life and interact with you? No because it's a product of my imagination. God independently exists because i have experienced him personally.

Once again, the Bible doesn't say that everything came about spontaneously.

God doesn't have to follow natural laws if he created them himself. As i've stated before, in Hebrew, a day is not confined only to a 24-hour period. The Bible states that God was before everything else came into existence, so essentially there was something before everything.

If God made the natural laws we know now, who are we to say how they work? My opponent's conclusion is false and misguided. As i have stated in my rebuttals, the Bible is scientifically accurate. No other religion has the same level of accuracy as it's claims about the natural world.


1. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I:371.

2. Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 312.


I would like to thank the opponent for his response to my arguments. I would like to use the opportunity to remind the opponent that the BoP lays solely on him. With this said, this round will be half-dedicated to rebuttals and half-construction of my unfinished arguments, mainly the arguments relating to “evolutionary psychology” and the dualist-monist controversy.

3R1RFC: Yom

The opponent has stated that Yom can either mean 24 hours or 1 million years. However, there are two objections I would like to raise. One relates to the version of the Bible that I have used, and the other relates to the concept of the Hebrew word of Yom.

Case A: The Geneva Bible is perhaps one of the most widely read and widely acclaimed version of the Bible ever

Put together in 1599 by a team of Protestant scholars, it is possibly the most accurate translation and definitely the most important translation of the Bible into modern-day English. In order to understand the accuracies of this version of the Bible, we must understand the process of compiling and creating this version of the Bible.

The Geneva Bible was translated from a Koine Greek Manuscript of the New Testament, presumably retrieved after the fall of Constantinople and a Hebrew version of the Old Testament. The scholars which translated the Geneva Bible were possibly the most intellectual wit in the protestant world; some of these names included William Whittingham, an English scholar who fled persecution in England, and Thomas Sampson. Whittingham was educated at Oxford University, a University known for its Hebrew and Jewish studies institute which goes on until today.

It is therefore highly unlikely for the scholars, whose knowledge of the Hebrew language exceeds many people, to commit a metaphorical error. Perhaps that is not enough to convince many that “yom” in this case referred to days.

Case B: Prose and Poetry

As stated before, Whittingham understood the Hebrew language well. Well understanding of the Hebrew language naturally leads to alignment of all words in context with the appropriate situation. What do I mean by this?

Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 is written in prose form. Hebrew poetry reflects the heavy usages of “parallelism” to the core. If it were written as a poem, then perhaps “yom” could be taken metaphorically. However, Psalm 78 was written as a poem, yet it literally describes the history of Israel from Exodus to David. Nevertheless, take this following picture into account:


If this was written as a poem, then Genesis 1:5 and 1:8 should be repetitive, as all Hebrew poems are written in that form; this form is called parallelism. Apart from this, the verbal ratio of a normal Hebrew Narrative is different from a normal Hebrew poetic phrase. There are four forms of finite verbs in Biblical Hebrew; in historical narratives, one is generally dominant. Steven Boyd, a Biblical Hebrew language expert, then goes on to conclude that the Hebrew word “yom” is in this case used literally, not metaphorically, as Genesis 1:5 to 2:2 are written in prose form.

Extension of Case B (Subcase A): Context!

Apart from the prose-poem case, the context case must also be used. The word “yom” is used in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 to denote the following periods of time:

  • “Daylight” as opposed to “Night”
  • The conventional 24-hour day
  • Used as a compound and now means “when”

However, it does not mention “yom” to mean periods of 1-2 years or even an indefinite period of time.

Laying out this case into a syllogism, we can conclude that:

Case A

P1. The Geneva Bible was compiled by people with superb understanding of Hebrew

P2. With a superb understanding of Hebrew, the context of Genesis is unlikely to be misunderstood by these scholars

C1. It is highly unlikely that the word “yom” is misunderstood

Case B

P1. There is virtually no room for metaphors/similes to be used in prose

P2. Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 was written in prose form

C2. The word “yom” was definitely not a metaphor


C1. Since the scholars who compiled the Geneva Bible had superb understanding of Hebrew, the probably to the context into account.

C2. Genesis was wholly written in prose form, which presents virtually no room for metaphorical analysis

FC. The word “yom” was clearly meant in a literal sense.


These accusations are false; a fallacy is illogical reasoning. Unless the opponent can claim that I have committed a formal logical fallacy, then he cannot say that I committed a logical fallacy easily.

Apart from that, the opponent has committed another fallacy; this one (albeit informal) is called faulty generalization. Because someone has experienced the feeling of God, doesn’t mean God exists. I can sense that the Ghost of My Dog is in my house, but without scientific evidence, then that is impossible. If the opponent is unable to provide quantifiable proof, not just qualifiable proof, that he has experienced such phenomena, then how are we, the audience, suppose to trust that claim?


Firstly, let us be rational about this; if the flood was local, then Noah and his animals could have easily escaped by immigrating north or south or wherever! Secondly, an ark wouldn’t have been needed in an event of a local flood because, as explained above, Noah could have easily migrated somewhere else. Lastly, the case of a Grand Canyon existing in order to drain the flood water that was given is still absent, unless the opponent wants to make a bold statement and say that Noah lived in the “New World” as we know it.

Secondly, let us look at the linguistics of the Biblical Verses that Described the Floods; although previously I have stated that certain parts of Genesis were poems, I would like to now make this bold statement; Genesis is wholly written in prose form. Why do I say this?

Firstly, the form of many Hebrew Narrative Sentences is:


We may observe that many, or almost all of the verses in Genesis start with the word “and” and then either the verb or a noun, like “God” This is the normal form of almost all of the verses in Genesis. We can then premise that the Genesis was supposedly supposed to be a literal description of human history accordingly to Christian thoughts.

With Noah’s Flood within the reaches of Genesis, then it would be rational to conclude that the Biblical verses were meant to be literally interpreted by readers; the account of Noah’s Flood stated worldwide, and even this verse is written in the CVSO form. Therefore, we can conclude that the accounts for Noah’s flood were global, not local. [3]

3R1NC: A Build On to Dualism-Monism

Arguments from Neurology:

P1. All decisions are validated and enacted by neurons in our bodies

P2. If the mind is a separate entity from the bodies, then these neurons do not move

P4. These neurons do move

C. The mind and the body are united

Neurons are substances in the body that contain a certain electrical charge, which is enacted in order for humans to understand the orders of the brain. These neurons transmit information from the brain to the body via a certain electrical and chemical charge. There are special types of neurons, ranging from sensory neurons to muscular neurons, which put feeling into all the body. Neuron is the substance that keeps my typing right now. Neuron is what unites your brain with your body.

Then why is the discovery of neurons so vital in disproving the dualist argument? Because in Dualism, the mind must be able to make and enact decisions on its own; it must not need the help of neurons. However, the discovery of neurons by Spanish Neuroloanatomist Ramon y Cajal has led to the conclusion that the brain and the body are inherently united. [2]

3R2NC: Evolutionary Psychology and “Is God an Illusion?”

P1. All human minds were designed to find design into chaos in order to impose a myth upon reality

P2.There is a plethora of evidence that God is a made up story to impose design on the random

C. Humans created God as a myth on reality

Humans need a story to survive. Humans need a meaning of life to live by, or else life would be pointless. It is not until the material progress that the 18th and 19th century has bought us that the refutation of all findings of the “meaning of life” was developed into a doctrine, formally called nihilism. This is because humans were born not blank, but with the belief that all things on life are purposeful, an Aristotelian view.

Defending Major Premise:

These fantasies gradually develop during the pre-adolescent stage. In his book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Justin Barrett cited the part of the brain called the HADD as the center for the belief of God. “For it is,” according to Justin Barrett “better to avoid an imaginary predator than being caught by a real one.” Stephan Jay Gould also stated that humans were forced to deal with the concept of mortality because of human consciousness, and religion may have been a solution to the concept. [1]

Defending Minor Premise:

Even in such abstract concepts, such as God and deities, it is completely necessary for humans to connect with themselves; an experiment showed that humans still believed that God was an anthropomorphic figure, even when many theological doctrines oppose this. If God were real, then one God would exist and be universally acknowledged by all religions. Even now, humans still have yet to come to a consensus about God and the concept. If humans can’t come up with a consensus, then each man has his own “little story” about His existence. [1]

Freud's theory is that the ego deals with reality. The HADD is part of the ego in Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory. It is used to compromise the superego and id.


The resolution is negated




Debate Round No. 3


I am in no way saying that an error was committed, but that yom can refer to a vague period of time. My opponent's error is that he argues that Genesis doesn't mention a periods of indefinite periods of time when i gave a source to support that the time length of a day in Hebraic thinking can range from a couple of seconds to years. Hebrews did not have the same concepts of time as we do. In Hebraic thinking, a day was made of the completed events (1). For example, if God wanted to create the sun and it would taken thousands of years, those thousands of years would make up that day. If it took a million years for God to make the oceans, those millions of years would make up the day in which God would complete his action of creating.

My opponent assumes that all natural phenomenon can be sensed. On top of that, not everything can be confirmed by scientific evidence. My opponent hasn't confirmed the existence of this website or that i exist or humans or plants, etc. He is not going by science, he is going by intuition and first-hand experience to interact with the world around him. What my opponent is basically implying is that in order to confirm the existence of everything, scientific observations must be made for everything which is impractical.

Maybe Noah couldn't have because of certain environmental factors, but that's aside the point. God told him to build an ark and bring his family and the animals in it.

The Bible was never meant to be taken literally all the time as we can clearly see from the sources i presented earlier.

My opponent fails to give evidence that the Bible itself was a story made up to help humans survive. From the evidence presented in my 1st round, this seems unlikely. My opponent ignores the evidence presented in 1st round. How is it that ancients could write about scientific accurate descriptions of the universe when scientific discoveries were made thousands of years later? How can the Bible have so little errors given the fact that humans are biased? How are prophecies true when humans cannot see into the future? God is the only simplest explanation.

I looked up HADD and according to Wiki (, this is what psychologist Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner wrote:

"The high cost of failing to detect agents and the low cost of wrongly detecting them has led researchers to suggest that people possess a Hyperactive Agent Detection Device, a cognitive module that readily ascribes events in the environment to the behavior of agents."

Logically, this is simply a cognitive module, not a solid explanation for God's existence. It does not imply humans only sense God and that it is caused by the brain. Wiki gives the example of a human coming across a footprint and assuming it is a lion. Was he wrong in his assumption? Yes, but do lions cease to exist and now become a product of our imagination? No. In my experience of God: I heard a voice claiming to be God, had a divine revelation of the nature of Jesus Christ, and an experience of repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is far more difficult to replicate that based on human experience. Religion MAY HAVE BEEN a solution to the concept of mortality, but which religion? Not all religions have the same truth value.

The fact that humans constructed many gods doesn't imply that the God of Abraham is invented. On the contrary, Romans 1:20-23 "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man"and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Paul said that people made up their own gods out of materials and rejected the invisible God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If Paul completely explains why people invent gods, we should also consider that given the circumstances, the God of Abraham isn't an invention unless you can provide solid proof rather than simply that humans need to connect themselves with deities.

I rest my case on these rebuttals.


1. Doukhan, p. 200. Cf. Von Rad, Vol. 2, p. 100-101.


I would like to thank the opponent for his response, although I would have appreciated a more well thought out one.

4R1RC: Yom

The opponent contradicts himself. He says that he is no way saying that a mistake was made, thus accepting the Geneva Bible in which it solely meant 24-hour days. He then contradicts himself by saying that he is arguing that the word “yom” in this case is being argued as a certain period of years. Firstly, this view shall be quite simply by saying that a Hebrew day usually runs from evening to evening, accordingly to the sun. Apart from this, the Genesis creation account mentions “evening” [1] as apart from “evenings” as described in Genesis 1:8:

And God called the firmament Heaven. So the Evening and the morning were the second day.

Again, I would like to remind the readers and the audience that the entire Genesis creation account was written in prose form, as stated in my last arguments. In a normal Hebrew prose, there would be no room for any metaphorical interpretations of words, as stated in my last argument, in which the opponent has completely dropped.

4R2RC: The Notion of Scientific Proof

Scientific proof has been defined in this case as any evidence obtains through/via an empirical experiment which serves to either prove or disprove a hypothesis. The opponent has yet to produce any valid scientific evidence; he can only point to “historical accuracies” of the Bible. However, we are not looking for any evidence of God; we are looking for specific evidence of God from a field of study. The opponent has yet to done that, and his BoP is yet to be filled.

4R2RCSCA: Existence and Science

The opponent states that I cannot proclaim that he exists, or trees exist, or that this website exists via science. Albeit I cannot proclaim that my opponent exists, I could use physics to prove that trees exist; I could use computer science to prove that this website exists. And this is all I ask of the opponent to do with God.

4R2RCSCB: Correlation is Causation?

Replying to his correlation/scientific accuracy part, let us observe the following graph:

We can see a correlation between the number of pirates and the temperature of the world. Therefore pirates are a divine being that can solve our problem. We should all become pirates!

Or is there a better explanation for this? A better explanation for this is that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Because there are less pirates in the world, doesn’t necessarily mean that the temperature should increase. Unless the opponent can turn his circular premises into a logical argument, then we can say that there is a missing link between his evidence that he has presented and his conclusions. His argument is a syllogism missing the minor premise.

At this point, I would argue that it would be more than right to say that science is limitless in the arguments that it could prove/disprove. In ads, you see people saying that this product scientifically removes stain or removes bacteria. You never see ads claiming to metaphysically remove stains, because science is reality. Whatever is unscientific can almost be regarded as a fictional tale. The opponent cannot simply claim that science could not prove everything, because science is what he lives on. We can then premise that science is the ultimate proof of all happenings; from myths to historical facts, from existence to the meaning of life. And that is why philosophy is declining; because philosophy has been replaced by a creed of scientific geniuses who ought to disprove the world and impose reality upon it.

So yes, in order for something’s existence to be confirmed, it must be scientifically, whether empirically or rationally, valid.


Throughout his argument, the opponent commits a fallacy called anecdotal evidence. He claims that he feels God, and gives us a little cozy story about how he experienced God.

Let me share a story of my own: when I was a child, I was haunted by the Ghost of My Dog. I was sleeping, and then my grandmother went out of the room. A dog suddenly appeared, flying in the air, howling, and experiencing pain. His dark shade surrounding his head got me up and running out of the room; I was more than definite that this was reality.

This story is currently presented to you as a true story. Now, let us start to debunk this story; the human mind produces DMT, a substance which starts producing in four instances, including near death experiences, deep sleep, before death, and during birth.

DMT is the substance that causes dreams/hallucinations to happen. DMT is usually produced in periods of 6-7 minutes; perhaps when I woke up, DMT production has not ceased yet. Or another plausible explanation is that the dog wanted to haunt me for crimes that I did not do! AHHHH I’m going to run away! [2]

Just because one has experienced something, doesn’t mean it is plausible. I experienced the spirit of my dead dog. You may experience God talking to you, but in reality, your brain is playing a mind trick. Never trust your mind

Apart from this, let us go back to the fallacy part; by giving a personal account of your experiences, but not supporting that account with facts or figures, that account can be easily dismissed as a fallacious claim.

Another fallacy that the opponent has committed is ad-hominem. He commits this by saying that the opponent is going by first-hand experiences and intuitive thoughts rather than science, yet he has left that claim unsupported. Firstly, I have used almost no first hand experiences until this argument. Secondly, that claim is somewhat hypocritical in a way.

4R4RC: Noah’s Ark

This one will be brief, but this one will be easy and understandable. IN order for the water present in the flood to be drained, it would require some natural phenomena like the Grand Canyon to drain it. Yet the Grand Canyon was present in only one continent where human history has exceeded the age of the Bible, therefore proving the flood theory false.

Objections in this theory will be raised in the following round, if the opponent picks up upon this topic.

4R5RC: Evolutionary Psychology and God

The opponent claims that the theory of Agent Detection does not explain God. However, Agent Detection requires human to find design in the chaotic orders that the world was created in. For example, Agent Detection (much like Fundamental Attribute Error) will lead men to believe in irrational claims, like “God” saved me in this instance. Agent Detection is universally described as a “survival tool” for humans, as it is a solution to the problem of mortality.

The horrible reality for the opponent is this; humans need a story. Humans need a myth to impose on reality. Agent Detection theorizes, correctly, that the human needs some sort of story to justify the existence of humans. Agent detection states that the cognitive modules of the brain causes humans to use intuitive logic rather than pure logic, which of course led to the spread of the theistic theory.

For example, if a human hears a twig snap in the middle of the wood, he would automatically assume that this is caused by a spirit behind him. That human calls this spirit God. This trait is called a sprandel, and is a side-effect of Agent Detection. In his book “Religion Explained” Pascal Boyer proves this concept through psychology, neurology and linguistics. He concludes with the following claim [3]:

As I have pointed out repeatedly the building of religious concepts requires mental systems and capacities that are there anyway. Religious morality uses moral intuitions; religious notions of supernatural agents recruit our intuitions about agency in general, and so on. This is why I said that religious concepts are parasitic upon other mental capacities.

I would like to also remind the audience two things:

1. The BoP lies upon the opponent to prove.

2. We are not talking about the existence of God in any other terms (historical/logical etc.) but scientific.

3. This debate is about the Abrahamic God, not about religion in general.

The opponent has yet to fulfill his BoP. Until then, the resolution is negated.

[1] Geneve Bible

Debate Round No. 4


Con fails to show how the actual Hebrew means 24-hour days. "Evening and morning" is understood by Semitic speakers as figurative (1).

"The opponent states that I cannot proclaim that he exists, or trees exist, or that this website exists via science. Albeit I cannot proclaim that my opponent exists, I could use physics to prove that trees exist; I could use computer science to prove that this website exists. And this is all I ask of the opponent to do with God."

My counter-argument is that science simply assumes the existence of things, not to prove whether they exist or not. Science is about HOW the universe works, not WHAT the nature of it's existence is which is up to philosophy. Secondly, while no direct evidence for God has been found, we can make an indirect inference. For example, Dark Matter cannot be seen, but we can detect it by the gravitational forces it emits in the universe. Same with God, which God exists? The theistic God? The hindu god? Simply by observation alone, we cannot determine which God exists. For that very reason, if the Bible is entirely accurate supernaturally, we can infer his existence.

"Throughout his argument, the opponent commits a fallacy called anecdotal evidence"

I did not use anecdotal evidence because i didn't expect that to be used as scientific evidence, simply to demonstrate why this experience is quite different from simply "feeling" the existence of something. My opponent fails to disprove the existence of a ghost dog, but simply provides an alternative explanation for it.

According to Wikipedia, Noah's flood happened in Mesopotamia. What evidence is there to connect this grand Canyon with Noah's flood? My opponent appears to still assume the flood is global.

"The opponent claims that the theory of Agent Detection does not explain God. However, Agent Detection requires human to find design in the chaotic orders that the world was created in. For example, Agent Detection (much like Fundamental Attribute Error) will lead men to believe in irrational claims, like "God" saved me in this instance. Agent Detection is universally described as a "survival tool" for humans, as it is a solution to the problem of mortality."

Like i said, agent detection can be applied to anything: spirits, monsters, made up humans, etc. It doesn't follow to assume that the Abrahamic God has been disproven by this reasoning alone or otherwise it is circular.


1. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective (Sierra Madre: Wiseman Productions, 1983), p.16.


I would like to thank the opposition for his reply. In this round, I will present rebuttals, conclude and present voting issues.

5R1RC: The Concept of Scientific Evidence:

The opponent is literally arguing not against the resolution, but against scientific evidence. The motion of this debate asks, and the opponent has not fulfilled his BoP. He has yet to provide any scientific proof as defined by the definitions he was given during the first negative round, in which he gradually accepts.

Apart from this, the existence of God is not a philosophical issue, whilst the nature of his existence may be. The existence of God, in our case, is a scientific issue; if he is proven to exist via science, then philosophical question of the nature of His existence can later be defined.

The opponent states that there is no direct scientific proof of God. He has just negated his own Burden of Proof. The opponent also states that “if the Bible is accurate supernaturally, then we can infer that God exists” Even if the Bible was accurate supernaturally, we can still only infer that God exists? We live in the natural world, a world in which reality rules. If we can infer that God exists in the supernatural, in means that we can only imagine that God exists in the natural world.

On the analogy of dark matter and gravity, dark matter is confirmed by something that exists in the natural world. No one doubts the existence of gravity; many doubt the existence of the soul, the supernatural etc. Therefore, we can only make inferences and observations, but cannot come with any solid information until facts are confirmed, throughout the scientific community, of the existence of God.

5R2RC: Noah’s Flood and Straw Man

Wikipedia states that:

The Genesis flood narrative is one of several similar flood myths. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra. Later and very similar Mesopotamian flood stories appear in the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical flood-story derive from the Mesopotamian versions, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written Mesopotamian stories of the Great Flood, and because the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia, particularly during the Babylonian captivity.

The opponent seems to present us a straw man biased presentation of the actual Wikipedia information. A straw man is a set of misrepresented information that is presented to either confirm the hypothesis when it, in reality, does not. It is also a logical fallacy. The Wikipedia excerpt states that many similarities can be seen between Ancient Sumerian Flood Myths and the Genesis Flood Account. But at no point that the Wikipedia article state that Noah’s Flood was a local Mesopotamian flood.

In fact, the Gilgamesh Flood Myth described a worldwide flood, in which “water swept foreign lands” The opponent’s information has been found to be invalid and highly straw-man like.

Apart from this, the Grand Canyon absence explanation still needs to be justified; we cannot simply believe that so much water could be drained in so little time without a natural structure similar to the Grand Canyon.

5R3RC: Evidence

This adequately describes all my points in this rebuttal.

Case B: Dog and DMT

This is Agent Detection in action right here; the opponent defends the saying that the spirit of my ghost dog is present, rather than going with an alternative scientifically valid explanation. It would be rational for humans to accept a generally scientific explanation about a supernatural entity rather than a non-scientific explanation of it. Again, science is limitless in proving things, and we are to accept it, not deny it and go for philosophy, as science is the existence and philosophy is the nature of existence. This debate asks for scientific proof; the opponent has failed to provide any.

5R3RC: Agent Detection

The opponent simply states that because it can be applied to other things doesn’t mean it applies to the Abrahamic God, which is a faulty assumption. Just because I could eat in many other ways (like with my hands) doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t eat with a spoon.

The opponent states that there is no evidence for the Abrahamic God, or at least direct evidence. Then the concept that humans are intuitive and will assume the supernatural is always present in the human mind; the opponent denies this, but does it himself.

We need no further proof of that theory.

With this concluding my rebuttal, I would like to sum up my numerous scientific evidence(s) against the existence of the Abrahamic God.

Argument Umbrella One: Dualism

P1. The understanding of the body could lead to the understanding of the mind

P2. The mind has to be part of the body for this to happen

C1. The Body is united with the mind

P1. All decisions are validated and enacted by neurons in our bodies

P2. If the mind is a separate entity from the bodies, then these neurons do not move

P4. These neurons do move

C1. The mind and the body are united

Argument Umbrella Two: The Bible

P1. Noah’s Ark was built by sheep herders with no skills in boat building

P2. No proof of Noah’s Ark has ever been discovered

C1. Noah’s Ark is invalid and irrational

Argument Umbrella Three: Psychology and Agent Detection

P1. All human minds have developed special properties over time

P2. These special properties give supernatural beliefs, like God and the Spaghetti Monster, a place

C. God is developed by the human mind and only exists in the human mind

P1. All human minds were designed to find design into chaos in order to impose a myth upon reality

P2.There is a plethora of evidence that God is a made up story to impose design on the random

C. Humans created God as a myth on reality

Argument Umbrella Four: Spontaneous Generation

P1. Spontaneous Generation is impossible due to the natural laws that we have emplaced on our Earth

P2. God has allegedly created humans via spontaneous generation.

P3. If the creation of humans under God goes to an obsolete theory, then God never created humans

C. If God never created humans, then it is quite possible for God to not exist

C2. If God never created humans, then it is impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist

In this debate, I will be providing voting issues from my perspective.


We ask for scientific evidence, yet the opponent has yet to provide us with any. Historical accuracy is not scientific evidence, and therefore, cannot be used and called scientific evidence; personal experiences can also be dismissed. Apart from that, the BoP lies on him, yet I have presented more arguments than him.


The opponent has made hypocritical ad hominem attacks on me and has falsely claimed me of committing some. Yet many of the government’s assumptions were highly fallacious, and I have only stated some of the fallacies committed.

Ignored Arguments

The opponent has ignored many of my arguments, many times unjustifiably. I admit that I have ignored some evidence he presented, because they weren’t scientific to the definition; however, the opponent has ignored my arguments on spontaneous generation and on the physics of it, instead turning this debate into a quasi-theology debate.

Vote meh.

Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
I am highly disappointed at the opponent's conduct in regards to voting this debate. I shall regard this debate as won by Pro, accordingly to the "one honorable" vote that was casted.
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
wait, I have one other way :P
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
9space the opponent set it so that NO ONE could vote on this.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
I wish I could vote on this...
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
No the Bible has no correlation with reality.
Every event in Genesis is out of sequence with what really happened according to Geological and archaeological studies. The planet was uninhabitable by land dwelling organisms for the first 2 billion years.
It was the cyanobacteria that enabled land dwelling organisms to survive.
And then the sequence was water creatures, fish to amphibians to lizards and then mammals.
Plants were primitive ferns, mosses. Seed bearing plants and grasses came much later.
The actual development of life on earth, according to evidence, was totally different to Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 was made up by naive camel/sheep herders and have no similarity with what really happened.

According to the Bible, the Earth is like a Snowglobe with the dome and Flat, Disc shaped land supported separately by pillars. On top of the showglobe dome sits God on a throne and stuck on the underside of this water filled dome sandwich are the stars, possibly glued to the dome with silly putty.

According to the Bible, our spaceships should smash into the dome and dislodge stars that would both fall to Earth.
Even in the last book of the Bible:
Revelations 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind."
Confirming that the Bible thinks stars are stuck to the underside of the dome above the Earth.

The Bible is so very stupidly naive that it really should be put to rest and stored away in library archives as only an amusement piece and an example of silly things people used to believe.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
Don't meet the ELO requirements to vote, so here's a simplified honorary RFD. Find it funny that my credentials are higher than the instigator, but I'm not allowed to vote....

"Alright, so I read this debate, and will vote on a round by round basis. Con's arguments were numerous and long, but many were unconvincing. The only thing that had me slightly leaning to him was regarding dualisms, but the other points are affirmed in the time being. R2 was a joke for pro. It basically consisted of him dropping ALL of con's points, and trying to falsely correlate bible verses with science. Or in other words "X works like Y in the real world, so Z must be scientifically accurate". Absolutely terrible arguments, and left all of cons affirmed. Con basically swept the rug. Correlation and Caucastion made by Pro, as well as a couple new arguments to stack the deck. Many unconvincing, many confining, all affirmed at the moment. Which left Pro making a rebuttal round a third of con's R2, which was weak and disappointing, as were his rebuttals. Con used the final round to obliterate pro, and to no unexpected avail. Pro hardly tried this debate, so as much as it pleases me...
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
dat argument.....omg
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
But again, Sagey, this is a contradiction with the Biblical text, as Genesis 1:2 was written in prose form, therefore rightfully leading to these articles being translated literally by the Geneva scholars. Although the Bible *may* have some scientific correlation, correlation is not causation!
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Though I often wondered about Genesis 1:2, since the Sun had not yet been created and God would not be hovering over waters, but ICE, since there was nothing to heat the water.
So God hovering over Ice would have been more likely.
The Bible did not know that Earth had a molten core, it assumed just earth and water existed.
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
Potential voters
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.